prosecution rests in CT home invasion

Scott wrote:

ziggy wrote:And if you are caught red-handed like these two; or unmistakenly on videotape - the appeals process should be changed significantly. Why? Because there is no doubt. The margin for error in the trials should be next to nothing. Put them on the Texas fast track and get on with LIFE!

No, the appeals should not be changed. One appeal process for those that may not be guilty and one for those that are? No way to make that work as the defense would be pretty sure all are not guilty no matter the facts and the opposite would be true of the prosecution. Appeals process must be the same.

As you know, it is very hard to overturn criminal convictions on appeal. It is not a new trial or a simple do over. It addresses questions of law. Often dizzyingly complex questions of law, but questions of law none the less. It is not a new look at the evidence to see if they did it. The prosecution does not have to reprove the original case.

Yes indeed. There is reasonable doubt and then there is no doubt whatsoever.

When there is no doubt whatsoever - none, not a shred - he's on tape doing it or he was caught like these two fleeing the home with the rubber gloves still on...pictures on the cell phone - NO doubt, zero, zilcho, nada, then your appeal is one...and instead of an automatic it should be discretionary because unless it can be argued that something so heinous was done at the trial that warrants a second look for the sake of due process - then go fuck yourself mr. criminal. You got caught - deal with it.

Other trials bring in a lot of circumstantial evidence that the jurors must piece together to form their decision of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those people deserve the appeals process because there is so much room for error - what evidence was excluded that should have been included and vice versa. A second look is a great safeguard.

What's wrong with that?

Scott wrote:

ziggy wrote:Oh God Scott sorry, I love you man. I really do, you are one of my favorite peeps in the forum universe. I just think intellectually you are in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand you say lives should be spared, as in Sam's and you fight for it with one reason being that it is what one of the victims would have wanted. Then, on the other hand when a victim fights for the death penalty, you assert that we can't do things just because that's what the victim wants or would have wanted. I don't get the difference. I guess because one seems all nice and humanitarian and the other barbaric - but housing humans in those conditions is barbaric. Dude - there are people up in arms over zoos and the treatment of animals which is actually BETTER than how some death row inmates are treated so which is more BARBARIC? "Let's see...yep we're gonna kill you on Thursday; no wait...Friday, if there's enough drug left; oh wait, no back to Thursday because the drug expires Friday..." Death row is torture.

There is nothing wrong with justifiable homicide. It makes sense. I'm taking it back to some old school common sense man, "some people just need killin".

You are a great intellectual but I'm just saying I see no common sense in keeping these people alive when they deserve to be punished and punishment of death is just and practical (assume for the sake of that argument that the appeals process isn't the insane circus that it is). The appeals process must be changed so that death row inmates do not cost more than the other criminals.

Back to your inner monologue - yes, some people's lives are more important than others. Hayes needs to die so that somebody has more breathing room, less of his fecal matter to process in a sewer plant, less toilet paper for his sorry rear end, less time spent watching over him; less worry for other prisoners that he might hurt them and less worry for EVERYONE that he might escape.

That is a compelling argument.

Now people do you see why Scott is a true intellectual and a great person? I very much respect you Scott. I think Debra's voice being heard on the DP mattered and that's OK for me...as well as her family and Mel's family and what they wanted - I'm so OK with that. The victims must go on. They need something from us as a society much, much more than the convicts do. They need us to care what they want, how they feel and help them to move on the best that they can. For some it's forgiveness, for others it's punishement and finality.

I can't logically condone cutting of the penis of a rapist but emotionally I sure can. I can sympathize with a victim who fears he will get out and hurt her again. We MUST have more empathy for the victims because they are innocent and must go on living their lives. We must care MORE for their feelings, their fears, their desires. WE must. It's the only way we are civilized imo.



PS:I would love for all pedophiles caught on tape molesting children to get the death penalty. Wonder what effect that would have on the making and distrubuting of child porn? If you are on tape or in the photo - you are history.

ziggy wrote:Oh God Scott sorry, I love you man. I really do, you are one of my favorite peeps in the forum universe. I just think intellectually you are in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand you say lives should be spared, as in Sam's and you fight for it with one reason being that it is what one of the victims would have wanted. Then, on the other hand when a victim fights for the death penalty, you assert that we can't do things just because that's what the victim wants or would have wanted. I don't get the difference. I guess because one seems all nice and humanitarian and the other barbaric - but housing humans in those conditions is barbaric. Dude - there are people up in arms over zoos and the treatment of animals which is actually BETTER than how some death row inmates are treated so which is more BARBARIC? "Let's see...yep we're gonna kill you on Thursday; no wait...Friday, if there's enough drug left; oh wait, no back to Thursday because the drug expires Friday..." Death row is torture.

There is nothing wrong with justifiable homicide. It makes sense. I'm taking it back to some old school common sense man, "some people just need killin".

You are a great intellectual but I'm just saying I see no common sense in keeping these people alive when they deserve to be punished and punishment of death is just and practical (assume for the sake of that argument that the appeals process isn't the insane circus that it is). The appeals process must be changed so that death row inmates do not cost more than the other criminals.

Back to your inner monologue - yes, some people's lives are more important than others. Hayes needs to die so that somebody has more breathing room, less of his fecal matter to process in a sewer plant, less toilet paper for his sorry rear end, less time spent watching over him; less worry for other prisoners that he might hurt them and less worry for EVERYONE that he might escape.

To elaborate on "compelling".
Wow. I just don't know. If Debra's voice had value.. then so must the victims in this case.

I have become fond of this forum. I think it is a somewhat unique place in the virtual world. There is something exceptional about each of the regular posters and most importantly we talk to each other. In some other on line venues people either preach to the choir or simply call each other names when they disagree. There is little to be learned in hanging out, all nodding heads in unison and less to be learned when people call each other names. We learn when we discuss matters with people who don't necessarily share our views. We look at things from antoher perspective and we contemplate what it is that we really believe.

I will candidly say that I am a work in progress. At times I debate and come away feeling more strongly about the position that I entered with. At times I debate and leave with more questions. Yesterday was one of those times.

I have no regrets and still beleive what I did in Debra's case was and is the right thing to do. Ziggy shook me up yesterday though and her logic is compelling. If Debra's voice had value then the voice of other victims must have value as well. The more I contemplate this can be done in an orderly way without losing the integrity of the system. The victim does not set the penalty but their voice should be heard. Today I view the death penalty sort of the way I view the abortion issue. I personally think it is a terrible thing to do BUT...... I am not certain I can say that it is absolutely wrong for everyone in all cases.

So to my virtual friends Ziggy and Tapu I suppose the answer is yes, in light of this case [but more importantly in light of my conversations with thinking people here] my view may have changed a bit.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/19/connecticut.murder.trial.penalty/index.html
Seems as though he wants to die.
Accurate or not his account of the events are disturbing.